Hard to find peace in pacifism

Going home to Evansville over the weekend was frustrating and gratifying at the same time. It was frustrating because I'm low on sleep, there is still no I-69 road and I have mounds of studying to catch up on. On the other hand, it's wonderful because I got to experience lots of little things rarely found in Bloomington: parking spaces, quality family time, and Evansville's claim to fame, the Fall Festival.\nBut most interesting was the drastic difference in attitude toward the Sept. 11 attacks. Bloomington can be so out of the mainstream that it's good to get away sometimes and see how America really feels about things. At IU, people are screaming for peace and restraint (as if the president hasn't shown it), while in Evansville most people wondered why it took so long to strike back.\nIt got me thinking about the "peace" people here, and in other liberal hotbeds, are crying for. Sir Henry Maine wrote in the 19th century that, "War appears to be as old as mankind, but peace is a modern invention." While I think true peace has always been part of God, I think he's on to something. Our way of thinking about peace is a perverted one.\nBritish political thinker Michael Howard put it best when he wrote, "Throughout human history, mankind has been divided between those who believe that peace must be preserved, and those who believe that it must be attained." An attempt at peace between the United States and Osama bin Laden now would try to "preserve" a peace that doesn't exist.\nThe book of Revelation in the Christian Bible speaks of a time, the end of times, when the Lamb will lie down with the Lion. Modern "peace activists" take matters into their own hands, pushing for peace where there is none. In the end, it results in more violence, not peace, because it suppresses a conflict and lets it fester over time.\nThe Palestinian-Israeli conflict offers a great example of the failure of peace-process liberalism. Yasser Arafat can sit back and let his people wage a war of terrorism simply because the West failed to intervene and save him from Israeli defeat.\nThe most widely used example (for good reason) is the World War II appeasement. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain tried to "preserve" -- against all reason -- a peace with Hitler that was not there. He rejected traditional views of power balances and military strength. Would rolling over dead for Hitler have been just, moral, or fair to the millions in concentration camps or those not yet conquered by Nazi forces? It isn't war that's immoral, but the conduct that started it.\nWhile our current conflict may be of a lesser magnitude, the course of action should be no different. Meaningless goals of hollow peace should be laid to rest as the United States responds to the September massacres in a way that will establish a more lasting peace; one where Osama bin Laden is no longer free to terrorize the world.\nModern day pacifists should stop opposing a U.S. military response. President John F. Kennedy wisely said, "The mere absence of war is not peace." The pacifists' course of action would not result in, or promote, peace. Sunday, the president took another step toward attaining true peace here and abroad.